Many of us in the Early Financial Independence, Early Retirement, community are chasing an amount of wealth which when achieved will allow us to as a minimum call ourselves financially independent and as a maximum allow us to head into full early retirement. To calculate that target wealth number it’s likely (I know I have) we've ascertained how much we intend to spend per annum and then divided that number by a Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR) we’re happy with.
The 4% Rule is a SWR that is bandied about freely as a rule of thumb. Personally it’s too bullish for me and so as I type this I'm planning on an SWR of 2.5% plus 0.25% to allow for investment expenses for a total withdrawal rate of 2.75%.
When we choose a SWR we’re likely trying to calculate the maximum real inflation adjusted annual income we can take while ensuring we don’t run out of wealth before we run out of life. In doing so what we are really doing is trying to protect ourselves from worst case sequence of returns risk. In trying to protect ourselves from this sequence of returns risk (and assuming history repeats which we all know is not guaranteed) we actually end up with a scenario where in the vast majority of cases we end up with a lot more wealth than we started with at check out time.
Let me demonstrate with an example. To do this I'm going to teleport myself to the US and use the excellent cFIREsim calculator as we’re pretty starved of decent free tools here in the UK. I'm going to assume I retire with one million dollars ($1 Million), give myself a 60% US Equities : 40% US Bonds asset allocation, spend at an inflation adjusted $25,000 per annum (a 2.5% SWR), assume annual expenses of 0.25% and assume I need that level of spending for 40 years. The output of that simulation is shown below:
The 4% Rule is a SWR that is bandied about freely as a rule of thumb. Personally it’s too bullish for me and so as I type this I'm planning on an SWR of 2.5% plus 0.25% to allow for investment expenses for a total withdrawal rate of 2.75%.
When we choose a SWR we’re likely trying to calculate the maximum real inflation adjusted annual income we can take while ensuring we don’t run out of wealth before we run out of life. In doing so what we are really doing is trying to protect ourselves from worst case sequence of returns risk. In trying to protect ourselves from this sequence of returns risk (and assuming history repeats which we all know is not guaranteed) we actually end up with a scenario where in the vast majority of cases we end up with a lot more wealth than we started with at check out time.
Let me demonstrate with an example. To do this I'm going to teleport myself to the US and use the excellent cFIREsim calculator as we’re pretty starved of decent free tools here in the UK. I'm going to assume I retire with one million dollars ($1 Million), give myself a 60% US Equities : 40% US Bonds asset allocation, spend at an inflation adjusted $25,000 per annum (a 2.5% SWR), assume annual expenses of 0.25% and assume I need that level of spending for 40 years. The output of that simulation is shown below:
Click to enlarge, cFIREsim output